Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

eldavojohn writes "GamePolitics is writing about a proposal to tax things that make your kids fat. The logic from its author: 'Almost all experts agree that the primary reasons [for the obesity epidemic] are increased consumption of larger quantities of high calorie foods, snacks and sugar sweetened beverages... and lack of physical activity as vigorous play is replaced by sedentary activities such as watching more television, movies and videos and playing video games. This bill would raise revenues from modest surcharges on the very food products and sedentary activities that are linked to the lifestyle changes involved in the explosion of childhood obesity in the last 20-30 years.' Not as explicit as Japan's fat tax but we're getting there."

It isn't a worthy cause. They are just looking for another way to squeeze even more out of us. NY already has some of the highest taxes in the country. I think by calling it a fat tax they hope to make it seem less egregious.
What they need to do is make serious budget cuts. Cut back on the state government. Unfortunately, the special interests groups are going to keep fighting for their piece of the budget when someone wants to cut it.

It is a well-established medical fact that cardiovascular deceases are more common in blacks than in whites. I propose a "black tax" on barbecue grills, chicken wings, and Hennessy cognac. This would make at least as much sense and will be just as constitutional as the proposed "fat tax".

Hmm...no one seems to bitch that much when they raise the taxes on smokes and booze. They justifiy the 'sin' taxes, especially on cigarettes...because of the health risks, and hope it is an incentive to quit.

This tax, especially on foods and drinks that can kill you if not used in extreme moderation (apparently they aren't) is for the same reasons, no?

So, look, if you're gonna bitch about these (and I'm sure new creative behavior modification taxes in the future), then complain in general about using any tax to try to modify behavior. They should not use the threat of tax to promote good or curb 'bad' behaviors if you are an adult.

What do you bet that in a future in the US, if you have a national medical system, with computerized national records, that can easily be tied to other systems out there that collect info on you (like with grocery store purchases? Drug stores? Liquor stores?) that you are charged and taxed based on your health risk behaviors? Don't think they'll do it?

Did you think they'd ever even consider taxing you a 'sin' tax for buying a soda pop??? Me neither...

They justifiy the 'sin' taxes, especially on cigarettes...because of the health risks, and hope it is an incentive to quit.

Am I the only one that notices that 'sin' taxes designed, ostensibly, as a deterent are counter productive. For example:

1. Tax Cigaretts to pay for Medicare/Medcaid
2. People cut back on cigarette purchases
3. Revinue goes down from 'sin' taxes
4. Budget shortfalls lead to further increases in 'sin' taxes
5. Rinse and repeat until consuption rate drops to the point where 'sin' taxes are incapable of generating sufficent revenue to feed the Governments need for more spending.
6. Find new 'sin' (in this case obesity).
7. Rinse and repeat all over again.

The problem with the 'sin' taxes, or the 'fat' tax is that it's used more to generate money and prevent spending cuts, than to actually improve anyones health. If the government does end up decreasing the undesirable consumption (tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, sweets, video games, movies, etc.), they end up running out of money to fund their pet projects. If these kinds of taxes were actually designed to do what they claim, then there would be mechanisms included to decrease funding of the relevant programs as consumption goes down.

It's all Nanny State BS, wrapped up in the guise of the Public Good. I'm going to become a parent in August, and I'll do what my parents did. Once our children get to the age where this kind of sedentary activity is a concern, I'll kick them outside when it's nice, and not let them back into the house until meal time. I'll keep high calorie foods as a treat of last resort, and limit TV, video games, etc. to an hour or two a night.

If you feel like you need the government to make sweets and video games more expensive to prevent you from giving them to your kids in excessive ammounts, please do the rest of us a favor. DON'T BREED. If you already have, please drop your kids off at the nearest adoption agency and go get yourself a tubal ligation/vasectomy. YOU are the parent. Act like it. Tell you child "NO", and then stick to your guns. Let them throw temper tantrums, they'll cry themselves out eventually. I know that I always did. If you dont' have the patience, then take them home and whip their ass. That worked just as well in my experience.

No. If certain fast food is that bad for the kids, make it illegal to market or sell it to minors.

Fast food isn't bad or good for the kids. Fast food consumed without moderation is the problem. A quarter pounder with cheese (500 calories), large fries (500 calories) and large soda (300 calories) adds up to 1,300 calories.

That's quite a lot for a single meal but not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things, provided that you adjust your caloric intake accordingly. There's no reason to charge me more for fast food simply because the rest of the country doesn't know what moderation means or how to exercise it.

Yeah, except the last time a Democrat was President of the U.S. didn't they burn done some compound in Texas because they wouldn't let the ATF in on a "child abuse" warrant? (hint: the ATF doesn't have jurisdiction in child abuse cases)

Yeah, except the last time a Democrat was President of the U.S. didn't they burn done some compound in Texas because they wouldn't let the ATF in on a "child abuse" warrant? (hint: the ATF doesn't have jurisdiction in child abuse cases)

Yeah, and how many ATF agents were killed & wounded?

I'm not sure the ATF really wants to play that type of scenario out in Texas on a large scale. They'd run out of agents long before Texas ran out of Texans or ammo. I don't think even the Democrats are nutty enough to st

I agree, this is NOT a worthy cause. Who are they to say who's fat? And if I'm not fat, who are they to say I have to pay because other people are fat, lazy, and unmotivated to help themselves? Some people don't give a shit that they're fat. If it's genetic or something, insurance will cover it. But don't make me pay more taxes. This isn't going to do jack crap to make people thinner. And if they're going to make anyone pay, they should make fat people pay the fat tax, since they are the ones that need the motivation to lose weight.

Once again, the government thinking they know what's best for us... morons.

And one more thing... a very important thing. This has NOTHING to do with getting people off their lazy asses and losing weight. It's just another way for the government to tax us. More money for them to piss away on stupid programs that do nothing and political agendas. You want more money..? Cut programs that are failing. There are plenty of them.

Cheap food is made with cheap crap, therefore is consumed by the poor (the worlds most populous group). They all buy it because it is cheaper than eating healthy. When you're struggling to make ends meet the last thing you're thinking is "is this healthy?", you're probably thinking more along the lines of "will this feed my kids for the next week?"

While it's true that it's easier to get good quality ingredients and healthier pre-packaged foods if you have the money for it, what causes obesity isn't so much the lower quality of food available for the money, but the choices people make on what to spend their money on.

For instance, yes, a hamburger in a real restaurant is better, healthier, and more expensive than a hamburger at McDonald's. But you can buy raw hamburger and cook it at home, and make it tastier, healthier, and far cheaper than you can get at McDonald's.

The boxed Macaroni and Cheese you get at Whole Foods is indeed better for you than Kraft, but costs three times as much. Less than half the price of Kraft, though, is buying the ingredients and making it yourself. Better tasting, cheaper, and less fattening.

Vegetables at your average farmers market cost about half of what they do in a grocery store, and are fresher and better tasting.

I could go on. Yes, the rich will always have more options than the poor. But with a little bit of research, effort, and practice, people can eat far healthier for even less money than the average American is doing now.

While I generally agree with you, what home grown mac n cheese recipe do you have that is healthier? All of the recipes we have are very high in fat.

Let us also not forget that many families are either single parent or have two working parents and thus there is a lack of time to prepare all of this delicious nutritious food. At my house we've been trying 20 minute recipes but in general they do end up costing more than just going out to eat.

One thing you are forgetting is that people that are cheap and would buy prepackaged food or eat at McDonalds will buy cheap ingredients for making food from scratch and you'll be back at square one when it comes to health concerns.

My house isn't struggling for money thankfully so we'll shop farmers markets mostly. Whole Foods is considered a special treat when we want to have a BBQ with family I don't get to see often or when we want a turkey for Thanksgiving.

Ultimately I'm not sure the food people are eating is the problem, it's more the lack of exercise in addition to the lack of proper sleep. Those contribute a lot to metabolism although obviously what you eat is still important.

While I generally agree with you, what home grown mac n cheese recipe do you have that is healthier? All of the recipes we have are very high in fat.

I've never understood this aversion to fat. Humans are evolved to digest fat. If you want to make your mac'n'cheese healthier, don't eat all the reprocessed crap that's in Kraft.

Let us also not forget that many families are either single parent or have two working parents and thus there is a lack of time to prepare all of this delicious nutritious food. At my house we've been trying 20 minute recipes but in general they do end up costing more than just going out to eat.

My household is dual-income, and we have plenty of time to prepare delicious, nutritious food. It's all about time management. Chop veggies the night before. Get a crock pot. It's not that hard.

I'm not sure how your home-cooked food costs more than going out to eat. You must be eating strictly off the dollar menu, or you must

That means if i want to match that one dollar fast food quarter pounder, I've spent 88 cents of it on meat, and haven't even payed for the bun. Sometimes I can make cheap burgers, when all the right things are on sale, but not often.

I'm a bit skeptical of the "healthy foods are more expensive" argument. The notion that you need a certain economic status in order to maintain a decent diet seems to be a uniquely American problem.

Beans, lentils, eggs, rice, basic grains--the stuff most of the world's poor live on--are all highly consumed because they're (relatively) easy to cultivate, nourishing, and cheap. Cheaper by far (even at your local U.S. supermarket) than Hamburger Helper, Spam, Hot Pockets, etc. But the Hot Pockets are much

I think this is a fallacy, but maybe the prices where I live are quite different. Here, a bag of whole carrots is about $1.20, while a bag of Doritos or other chips is 99 cents. By both weight and density of nutrition, the carrots are hugely cheaper than Doritos. Or say, chicken here is often around $3 or $4 a pound, again both by weight and nutrition density a far better deal than what you would get for 3 or 4 bags of chips. Are veges really super expensive where you live compared to say chips and soda, or is it that people are forgetting how to cook and not stepping up to the plate (har) when it comes to their children's health?

Think about how many calories are in a bag of carrots versus a bag of doritos. Measured per calorie, vegetables are MUCH more expensive.

Well using that logic, there's no possible way you can lose this one, is there?

Of course that's exactly the point -- fatty foods *do* contain more calories by volume, thus eating 99c worth of chips will "make you fatter" than 99c worth of carrots.

You can't have it both ways: either it's that the cheapest food available is horrendously awful for you (not true, as pointed out above), or the food that's got the best calorie/cost ratio is bad for you when consumed without regard for calorie density (see above:

Not to mention that not too many people can just sit down and eat a whole bag of carrots; to make the carrots palatable, most people eat them with a dip, which is usually high in fat. One of my friends from college even went so far as to use cake frosting as her carrot dip!

For those of you in the northeast, I recommend shopping at "Wegman's" if Whole Foods is too high for you. I've lived all over the country and I've never seen a place with such a great selection of unprocess, raw, whole foods for such a reasonable cost.

I see that you are very short sighted, and intolerant of others freedoms.

I'm not intolerant of other peoples freedoms - I would forcefully oppose a ban on anything. However peoples choices have consequences and they should be held responsible for them.

If I have to pay $1.60 instead of $1.40 for a plate of greasy fries if I want one, I really couldn't care, and I should be able to enjoy that in peace. However someone who regularly make a meal out of fries and pop is going to have health problems and the money collected should go to offset those health costs. I should npt be o

People want free health care, people want free this, that, and the other thing.

and they will find enough people who will feel it is OK to tax X because said people don't like X. The problem is that group will get whacked by people who don't like Y.

A VAT by any other name.

The stuff has to be paid for. The fastest way to keep people dependent on the government and keep people poor is to make it easy to be dependent and poor.

I know people who would cheer those gamers being taxed, I have vegan friends who would have a parade for fatties to pay more tax...

it never ends... too many people take enjoyment by having others punished. Most get bent when it occurs because of "religious" reasons but honestly does it matter when it comes down to it?

Democracies always have problems when people finally figure out they can vote themselves other peoples money, its worse when elected officials realize it works to keep them in office. Its even worse when a sitting President uses the bully pulpit to stomp on contract law and intimidate lawful holders of guaranteed debt to give it up.

A republic is the rule of law, specifically, written law. A constitutional republic writes down what the limited extent of government powers is. While it is true that a few elite men designed our constitutional republic, they designed it explicitly to limit the power of any governors -- themselves and any subsequent politicians.

In in oligarchy there may be written laws, but in effect, you have the rule of a few men, because there may not be sufficient boundaries in the existing written law, or the few may

Not to mention the fact that when "Almost all experts agree" on a wide range of things, they are almost certainly going to be wrong about at least a few of them. The notions of experts about what sorts of foods make people fat have changed drastically in my several decades of adulthood. They're bound to change again. Will the taxes go away on foods that the latest scientific version of the truth decides are no longer fattening? Of course not. They'll stay, and also be added to the new alleged culprits, as more and more foods fall under the tax.

And then, aside from the food question, there's the question of whether it's in the best interest of government to discourage mental activity and learning (in the form of games) on the dubious assumption that the alternative that people will choose will be healthier.

states pay for medicaid and in NY State it's run like an HMO and open to a lot of people like small business owners to buy health insurance. the premiums are based on income, which means poorer people are paid for by others

Those "additional costs" are an article of faith, and not the proven thing most people seem to assume.

When studies have been done, it's turned out that people who live unhealthy lifestyles generally cost a society less overall because they tend to actually die of their health problems. The tofu-eaters, on the other hand, live longer, and accrue more costs.

Paying lung cancer care for a smoker who lives 12 months after his diagnosis is cheap compared to paying medicare, social security, and eventual hospital costs for someone who lives much longer.

/antismokinglobbyLung cancer? Ever smoked? You did?! Once when you were fifteen. Smoking caused your lung cancer. Never mind you lived next to a highway for forty years. That one fag gave you the cancer./antismokinglobby

I have seen some studies where they found that how good a certain food tastes is completely subjective. My father is diabetic (genetic, not weight induced), so our family tends to eat very little sugar and related foods. This means that when I was little, we NEVER had sodas in the house. In fact, it wasn't until I was playing at a friends that I first tried it, and I couldn't stand the taste of it. I thought it was absolutely revolting.

You can see the same trends if you look at different cultures. People wh

as much as yes, these things can make people fat, how are they trying to put video games into this? People actually SWEAT from video games. This is like saying a racecar driver gets fat because he's sitting the whole time, which many know is not true at all.

Got to love the idea too, pay extra even if you are, say, someone in shape who merely wants to cheat on their diet once in a blue moon, now should be taxed extra too. Sheesh.

That, and what about games designed around doing a lot of work, motion, etc, such as Wii Fit and Dance Dance Revolution (DDR)? People have been able to use these games as a way to make working out fun. Does that mean you'll get a tax rebate on these games and the controllers necessary for them?

People with office jobs should have to pay this tax. They sit on their ass all day. Why should a construction worker, a whorehouse picker, or any other manual labour have to support office workers' sedentary lifestyle?

Anyone who is morbidly obese and doesn't have a diagnosed thyroid problem gets no Medicare or Medicaid? How right wing of me! I should be kind and compassionate by paying taxes to support the health care of people who know their habits are destroying them.

Believe it or not, the British NHS recently did an analysis and determined that smokers and the obese cost the system less money than healthy people. The reason being that these people tended to die early, before the complications and cost associated with old age set in.

so in that vein, I say, lets remove end of live coverage from medicare or medicaid.

Essentially, lets refuse to cover the cost of treatment to individuals who have ZERO realistic expectation of recovery (beyond pain management and keeping them clean and comfortable). I realize that there are limitations already in place, but it is still very common for the tax payers to fund a very expensive procedure that merely keeps someone alive for a week or two longer.

"Health care premiums will increase as a direct result of the State Legislature approving the Governor's proposed increases in taxes, fees and assessments on your health benefits on February 4, as part of his Deficit Reduction Plan."

Yes, but the increase in health care premiums is an indirect result of the insurance companies protecting their margins at all costs. They pass on their increased tax expense, and you pay higher premiums, so that their profits are not damaged -- only yours are. And you know what? You (or your employer) are willing to pay the extra cost.

The answer is to jump ship for another insurer with lower premiums. Oh, they're all raising rates? That's the joy of oligopoly.

Note: at a previous employer, I was able to negotiate a higher salary in exchange for not receiving medical benefits. I self-insured, and made out pretty well (my total cost was around 60% of the company's premium, but they paid me 75% of their premiums over base pay -- so we both saved money, even after employment taxes on the salary difference). My current employer offers nothing of the sort, so they're stuck paying high rates.

I travel by public transport and pass by Utrecht Central Station. It has various eateries, from healthy to McD/Burger King. Price for a McD basic hamburger, 1euro. Price of a natural bagle with cream chease. 2,95. Both satisfy my hunger, but what about my thirst? 1 euro for a soft drink, 3 euro for a fruit shake. If I am buy a meal it is 2 bagles and 1 fruit juice , nearly 10 euro's or 2 hamburder and a soda for 3 euro.

"Almost all experts agree that the primary reasons [for the obesity epidemic] are increased consumption of larger quantities of high calorie foods, snacks and sugar sweetened beverages... and lack of physical activity"

So wait...you're trying to tell me that the first law of thermodynamics is true? Lies!

"Almost all experts agree that the primary reasons [for the obesity epidemic] are increased consumption of larger quantities of high calorie foods, snacks and sugar sweetened beverages... and lack of physical activity"

So wait...you're trying to tell me that the first law of thermodynamics is true? Lies!

This is why Congress really needs to repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics. Sadly, it seems that most members of both parties are in the pocket of Big Thermo.

That's like saying "the crumbs on the floor are not ants." It's a factually true statement, but it's hardly a useful one. It would be more useful to say that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But correlation very often does mean something. The fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation does not mean that correlation somehow implies non-causation. At the very least, correlation implies "maybe there's something here we should look into a little more closely."

You got that right. Corn production in the US is massively subsidized, so much so that Mexico can no longer afford to produce its own corn.

This glut of corn has resulted in a number of rather poor changes to the US diet. HFCS as a substitute for sugar is one. Massive amounts of corn for feeding beef cattle is another - corn is not a natural diet for cows and is so bad many farmers are on record stating the cows would have died in 6 months anyway from organ failure if they were not slaughtered first. Is th

You are out of your gourd if you think corn has no nutritional value. It was the staple grain in the diet of many Native American tribes for centuries. That doesn't mean we should turn it in to a sugar substitute and put it in everything, but trying to pretend that it isn't an important grain is silly.

Tax your gasoline to a similar degree as in Europe. That would encourage less car journeys, more walking/cycling and act as a buffer for when the oil prices start increasing again so your gas prices won't double practically overnight again.

None of these things make people fat! Parents let their kids get fat. When I was young, I had a Nintendo and Gameboy and plenty of videos and TV to watch, but my Mother wouldn't let me sit on my ass and watch them all day. She made all of her children go outside. If we were bored, she gave us yard work and/or other chores to do! The children today aren't going to get less fat if they tax this stuff because people will keep buying it (look at cigarettes, we know that they will give you cancer and they tax the hell out of it, almost $8.00 a pack in NY, but millions of people buy them every day). If you want to stop kids from being fat do something to get the parents involved. Start making your kids play outside!!!!

I'm not a nutritionist, nor play one on TV, but I can make the argument that one can of Coke every day does *not* make a person overweight, while eating too much broccoli *will*.

The point: this is not about nutrition or health, but rather, about the government finding *any excuse it can* to extract more and more money from the pockets of it's citizenry... while at the same time imposing more and more of it's will on them.

A day will come... sooner than the busybody pointy-head academics, power hungry Congressional thugs, and greedy special-interest lobbyists think... when those of us peasants who continuously get ravaged by out of control lawmakers, have finally had enough... and we begin reaching for our pitchforks.

Growing up, and trying to deal with my diet, I realized at some point that all these drive-throughs kill people. You can't live off of McDonalds. If you ate Burger King for every meal you would die. Yet this food is marketed more, cheaper than, and more convenient than going to the grocery store. Going to the grocery store to pick up some fruit takes longer and costs more than stopping by Del Taco. Something is wrong here.

(To you people who can't live without your fast food, I just say this as someone who struggled with obesity, you diet is a huge part of your health. It's not easy. Going to drive throughs too often KILLS YOU.)

I've thought about this and similar subjects a lot (such as smoking cigarettes) and I think society has the following options.

Let fat people (or smokers or whatever) just have a worse quality of life than everyone else. Bad habits will most likely be passed on down to their children. Here we blame the fat kid with fat parents for being fat. Hopefully the fat kid learns some will power when he grows up, because he sure won't learn it from his parents.

Ban cigarettes and food not passing "nutritional requirements" completely. This is the fascist option. This removes the requirement for thought from the population.

We take steps to encourage citizens to be healthier. I prefer ongoing education over generations in the hope that eating fatty fast food becomes a rarity in culture. If options 1 and 2 are the extreme responses to an unhealthy population, this option is the middle ground. We already sin tax cigarettes. Heart Disease is America's top killer right now, and it is natural for the government to try to think of ways to combat that.

Re: Fat Tax. It doesn't sit well with me. However, I admit that this tax will affect some people who might get something from the grocery store instead of ordering Pizza. It will make fat food cost more than healthy food. (I almost like this tax for this reason alone.)

After thinking about it, I realized I wasn't so against a fat tax as I thought I was. But damn, if you're gonna make a fat tax then lower some other goddamn taxes! Make my fucking carrots and apples and oranges tax free! (Oh god... who gets to decide what food is "healthy" and what food is "unhealthy"?)

Kids don't play outside anymore. When I was a kid, my friends and I would go ride our bikes, go build a tree fort, play hide and seek, or play a million and one other games we made up on the spot. Sometimes we fell down, sometimes we got hurt, and once in a while we even learned something.

These days everyone is so worried. "Won't somebody think of the children!"
The Children are growing up with out learning that when you fall sometimes you get hurt.
Here is a connection these so called experts never seem to figure out. Kids that go out side to play, get exercise, and (Imagine this.) they don't get fat.

Kids don't play outside anymore. When I was a kid, my friends and I would go ride our bikes, go build a tree fort, play hide and seek, or play a million and one other games we made up on the spot. Sometimes we fell down, sometimes we got hurt, and once in a while we even learned something.

When I was a kid, me and my friends would work on the family farm or in a coal mine. Sometimes we fell down, sometimes we got hurt, and once in a while we even learned something.

What happened to free will and free choice? If sitting on your ass watching TV, drinking cokes makes you fat who cares. Why should the government have the right to tell someone they need to not do/consume certain things via a tax.

Someone could argue that fat people cost more in medical expenses and because of this they cause the cost of medical procedures to rise. This may be true. However, if someone is over weight they have a higher chance of death via heart attack, or diabetes. Healthy people end up living longer, and costing more money. [blogher.com] So what is the problem with someone being fat? In the long run they cost less.

On the other hand could fit people also cause medical expenses to rise? Running is bad for your knees you could twist a knee or ankle in basketball or baseball. You could get a concussion in football or loose tooth in hockey.

So being both health or fat increase the cost of insurance and medical expenses on a whole, so why just target fat people? Is this just a political/social vendetta against over weight people?

I ran a half marathon last year and I hope to run a full marathon this year. There is almost no fat on my body. I go to the gym and then come home and relax by playing video gams.

If I lived in NY, I'd be pissed. Playing video games and exercise are not mutually exclusive. Maybe if these kids had parents that didn't sit around watching TV every night while eating their take out dinner there wouldn't be a problem?

Lets just be honest... New York needs money. This is the 5th or 6th ridiculous new New York Tax featured on slashdot in the past year and a half. None of this has to do with anything they claim it does.

This is about poor management within NY state. Our government is out of f'n control here. We're litterally leading the state BLIND... and fucking hookers with state paychecks.

Lots of people pass through those toll booths every day. Supposedly they rake in 18+million a week on them... Where does all of that go? Oh wait... to BUILD 2 COMPLETELY NEW BASEBALL STADIUMS for 2 of the richest teams in baseball!

What the fuck are we doing? The Yankees should have paid for their stadium on their on. The Mets should pay for their own stadium. Let me ask you this.... Since all of our tax dollars went to building these 2 USELESS stadiums to replace 2 functioning (and 1 of which historic) stadiums... I can now assume that i can go to the games any time i want for free right? Nope. Not only did they take our tax dollars to build these redundant stadiums, they have the nerve to charge us ridiculous fees to get in. Talk about a fucking con job.

THAT is our political system at its "best"

So pay for your soda tax.... pay your GTA4 tax...:) Lets really talk about WHERE THE FUCKING MONEY GOES.... and who sells us out on a daily fucking basis.... and I'm for National Health care folks:)